KCIN, INC., AND NICK VARIE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CANPRO INVESTMENTS, LTD., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
KCIN appealed the denial of attorney's fees and costs after prevailing in a breach of lease dispute against Canpro Investments. The court affirmed the denial of fees under the prevailing party statute but reversed the denial based on the offer of judgment statute, and certified conflict with other District Courts of Appeal regarding prevailing party fees in contract litigation.
The court affirmed the denial of fees under section 57.105, holding that a trial court need not award prevailing party attorney's fees in every contract case, particularly where both parties' conduct contributed to the contract's failure. The court reversed the denial of fees under section 768.79 and remanded for reconsideration in light of the subsequent TGI Friday's decision.
[1] A trial court is not required to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party in every contract litigation case, particularly when both parties contributed to the contract…
[2] In contract litigation where a contract provides for prevailing party attorney's fees, an award is not automatically mandated if the contract failed due to the fault of b…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A rule which requires an award of prevailing party attorney's fees in all cases may result in an unjust reward to a party whose conduct caused the failure of the contract.”
Establishes the court's rationale for rejecting a mandatory prevailing party fee award in all contract cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCanpro Investments filed a complaint against KCIN for alleged breach of a commercial lease. KCIN filed an answer and counterclaim. Following trial, th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Commercial Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
KCIN, Inc., and Nick Varié (KCIN) appeal the denial of their motion for attorney’s fees and costs. They assert entitlement on two theories: (1) as a prevailing party based on section 57.105(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and (2) as a result of an offer of judgment based on section 768.79. We affirm the denial based on section 57.105 because we agree with the trial court’s refusal to name a prevailing party, but certify conflict with decisions of the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. We reverse the denial based on section 768.79.
Canpro Investments, Ltd., filed a complaint against KCIN based on an alleged breach of a commercial lease. KCIN filed an answer and a counterclaim. Following a trial, the trial court found all the claims to be without merit and denied relief to all parties. KCIN then filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs based on an offer of judgment and as the prevailing party under the contract. The trial court denied the motion.
KCIN contends that the trial court erred in denying the section 57.105 motion because the court refused to declare a prevailing party. KCIN relies on Lucite Center, Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), which states that in a breach of contract action, one party must prevail. See also, Green Cos. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). We conclude that under the facts of this case, the trial court’s ruling of no prevailing party was proper. Prevailing party attorney’s fees are just and proper in the majority of contract litigation. We are concerned, however, with contracts that fail as a result of fault by both contracting parties. A rule which requires an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees in all cases may result in an unjust reward to a party whose conduct caused the failure of the contract. The rule is especially inequitable in the ever increasing number of eases in which the attorney’s fees far exceed the claims for damages arising from the contract. Therefore, we hold that an attorney’s fee award is not required each time there is litigation involving a contract providing for prevailing party fees. To the extent that the decisions in Lucite and Green Companies require an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees in every such case, we certify conflict to the Florida Supreme Court.
KCIN’s second issue, entitlement to fees based on the offer of judgment statute, appears to be controlled by TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1995), which was issued subsequent to the trial court’s ruling. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of TGI Friday’s when it ruled, we reverse and remand for the court to reconsider the request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Conflict certified.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009)…utchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (recognizing that there can be "compelling circumstances” in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case); KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Investments, Ltd., 675 So. 2d 222, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“A rule which requires an award of prevailing party attorney's fees in all cases may result in an unjust reward to a party whose conduct caused the failure of the [*1204] contract.... [A]n attorney's fee award is not require…
-
Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ad opted to do nothing, Valley Oak was able to file its mo- • tion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. . Baratta argues that the trial court had the discretion to determine that neither party prevailed under KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Investments., Ltd., 675 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and its progeny. In KCIN, this court recognized: A rule which requires an award of prevailing party attorney's fees in all cases may result in an unjust reward to a party whose conduct caused the failure of the contract. The rul…1 / 2
-
Candyce E. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ion in determining who is the prevailing party. However, in a breach of contract action, one party must prevail, absent compelling circumstances. See Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Invs., Ltd., 675 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court shall reconsider its findings, basing its award on who prevailed on the significant issues in the suit. As to all other issues raised, we affirm on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tall…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- TGI Friday's, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995)
- The Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)